(March 7, 2017 at 1:19 pm)Nonpareil Wrote:(March 7, 2017 at 12:52 pm)SteveII Wrote: The real argument can be formulated as follows:
1- It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
Incoherent terms, bare assertion.
(March 7, 2017 at 12:52 pm)SteveII Wrote: 2- If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3- If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
Non sequitur.
(March 7, 2017 at 12:52 pm)SteveII Wrote: A. The argument hangs on the concept of necessary (within premise 3)
The argument does not make use of the "necessary" concept.
Even if it did, it would remain nonsensical. A being that is possibly necessary in one world is not... well, necessarily necessary in other worlds, as there is possibly a world where it is not necessary.
This is why the modal ontological argument is such complete bunk; even granting that its definitions are coherent (and they aren't), it fails to establish that they actually apply.
(March 7, 2017 at 12:52 pm)SteveII Wrote: While greatness might be subjective, maximal greatness is not.
Asserting this does not make it true. "Greatness" is still a value judgment. It is still subjective. Adding "maximal" to it does not make it any less so.
You don't want to discuss this. You want to lecture me on something you do not even understand. To old, don't care.
